Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

Could anyone advise what is the definition of “VyE” in the formula of “VyE/VcolOE “ identified in Table 10-10a (p. 155)?
Asked ASCE 41 committee and got no response, as usual.
Thank you in advance.

RE: Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

Search of the document turned up this definition:-

RE: Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

The equivalent table in ASCE 41-13 had a V term that was defined as "the design shear force calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with Section". Section says in part:

This is consistent with the definition of VyE that Agent666 found (in the commentary of ASCE 41-17). They can't keep their symbols consistent, but if you look up Vp in Chapter 1 of ASCE 41-17, it gives a pretty good definition:

The other thing I have wondered is what axial load should be applied to the column when determining the plastic moment of the column, which in turn determines the plastic shear. Since you are comparing VyE to VcolOE and VcolOE is calculated based on axial compression only from gravity loads, that is what I use to determine my plastic shear. Below is a snip from

RE: Coefficients in ASCE 41-17

Thank you, Agent666 and Chris3eb, for your input.

Chris3eb, regarding the application of NUG when determining the plastic moment of the column, what you described is also what I did. In theory, a different PMM curve should be developed for the top and bottom of the column to obtain the necessary plastic moment for each load combination. This is illustrated in the design example in
“SEAOC Design Guide, vol. 1”, https://seaosc.org/Store/#!/SEAOSC-Design-Guide-Vo...

That said, both of you might already have had a lot experiences in dealing with ASCE 41, and I would like to solicit your general opinion if I may:

I just came off a project using ASCE 41-17 Linear Static Procedure to evaluate a multi-story concrete building in Washington state that was built in the ‘50s. Currently there is no widely available commercial software that would do such evaluation systematically (calculating “m” values for each components, checking D/C ratio, etc.), so tremendous efforts were devoted to a more “manual” operations with numerous spreadsheets. Of course, CSI’s Perform-3D would do this more “automatically”, but it is geared for nonlinear analysis only, which is a whole new ball game.

After jumping through all these hoops, I become more appreciative of what commented in this article:
It was first published in 2008, before 31 and 41 were merged, however, I think their concepts and arguments are still valid. I therefore have to wonder if ASCE 41 is really any better than using the 75% approach, as prescribed in section 303.3.2 of IEBC, which allows us to proceed in accordance with ASCE 7. I understand the concern on the issue that “simply reducing the ground motion demand by a factor of 0.75 does not result in a spatially uniform hazard”, as noted in ASCE 41 Commentary, but we can tweak the hazard level to obtain a more appropriate ground motion demand based on the specific site.

Any thoughts? Thumbs up or thumbs down for 41? Thanks.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


White Paper - Considerations for choosing a 3D printing technology
The adoption of 3D printing into major companies’ product development life cycles is a testament to the technology’s incredible benefits to consumers, designers, engineers and manufacturers. While traditional production methods have limitations in manufacturability, 3D printing provides unparalleled design freedom due to the additive method of building parts layer by layer. Download Now
White Paper - Are all 3D printed metals the same?
With so many different 3D printing metal systems and processes today, how can you know exactly what you’re getting? Today, there are several different methods for manufacturing 3D printed metal components with their own strengths and limits. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close